On Sunday 17 August 2008 05:26:28 Michael Howell wrote:

> Well, some of th tools to use Docbook, and it would be easier to simply
> somehow get Dockbook from the wiki and make use of the existing
> infrastructure. Also, Docbook provides ways to express things that
> Mediawiki cannot. For example, you will notice that the KDE DTD provides
> aliases for common names such as &RMB; for right-mouse-button, or more
> importantly, the actual markup like <gui-menu> to describe things commonly
> used in
> documentation. Moving to Mediawiki and straight HTML would allow for
> wiki-based editing, but would regress in some ways as well. A docbook-based
> wiki would be ideal, since we could continue to use the Docbook tools and
> markup AND get wiki-based editing.

That is a good point, but I would rather see that worded as. "Docbook has some
features/additional markup that we use, therefore we need a way to do the
equivalent in a wiki system." Not "Docbook has a feature we use therefore we
must continue using it."

Most wikis allow plug-ins to be written. It will take more work but it should
be do-able to add all this functionality, and possibly make the output
clearer. Currently all <guimenuitem> does is put a slightly grey box behind it
and then draws an arrow. It shouldn't be too hard to code that.

As for the aliases, I think they're mostly there to keep consistency and speed
up translation. I've no idea how we can easily fix this. Thoughts?

For those interested a complete list of the KDE Docbook markup can be found
at: http://l10n.kde.org/docs/markup/index.html

>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Michael Pyne <mpyne@purinchu.net> wrote:
> >  On Saturday 16 August 2008, Michael Howell wrote:
> >
> > First off, please don't just reply and dump all the text you're replying
> > to after your response. If it's important enough to include in the reply
> > it's important enough to quote before your response that way there's
> > context with your message.
> >
> > > It would seem necessary to use something other than Mediawiki, since
> > >
> > > Mediawiki can't really map to Docbook. The KDE Docbook can contain
> > >
> > > information that Mediawiki cannot express. Yes, it would mean using a
> > >
> > > Docbook-based wiki. Is there one?
> >
> > Well you're overthinking it I think.
> >
> > What we want is presumably some way to create an offline records of these
> > docs, right? Available in different translations?
> >
> > Couldn't we simply dump the Wiki into static .html files and call it
> > good? We use DocBook as a means to an end, if we find a better way to
> > achieve that end then it's worth asking if we still need DocBook.
> >
> > Maybe that's not the best way to go about it but don't get caught up in
> > "it must be DocBook" unless there's other good reasons (i.e. the rest of
> > our tools need DocBook, etc.)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > - Michael Pyne
> >
> > >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to
> >
> > unsubscribe <<

>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<